No one seems to mention the Polonator at sequencing conferences, as far as I can tell, nor does anyone know much about the company supposedly commercializing the system. Will the thing ever see the light of day in your opinion? I would think that most people want the sort of technical support that comes from a company with experience in the field.

I know someone who has one. The impression I get is that it can't quite keep up with the throughput and read length of the major commercial platforms (just doesn't have the same R&D thrust behind it) but certainly has a lower barrier to entry cost-wise. It also looks like it would be a good platform to develop alternative applications due to the open-ness.

I don't have a Polonator, but here is a reason to consider it serious:

Ever tried to do trouble-shooting on a commercial platform? It's pretty hard because much of what is going on is hidden from you, considered a "trade secret". That is, the companies are deliberately hiding from you the mechanisms of operation of a device you supposedly are doing science on.

Is that even science? Here is a test, try and write a manuscript where you refuse to divulge critical information about your methodology and see if you can get it published. It is unlikely you will succeed. Yet manuscripts are published every day containing data generated using methodologies not available to us. Why? Because those methodologies are performed using commercial instruments or kits.

Not all companies work this way. So, in principle, it is not necessary.

Polonator is one example. As csc says, they don't have the same amount of R&D plowed into them. But, hey, that is partially because we keep sinking our research dollars into products from companies that hide their methods from us.

I suspect MiSeq and IonTorrent will truly consign Polonator to a very small niche of true believers, as the cost advantages (both upfront & per sample) will evaporate. It sounds like a well engineered machine, but with very short reads and too little user base to drive the applications needed to make it interesting to a larger community.

Just to clarify: the closest thing you have to a "new version of the polonator" would be the MaxSeq, which is actually a very diferent instrument. It works with sequencing by syntesis (as well as with sequencing by ligation), and uses a library prep chemistry (rolonies) which is far easier to use than polonies, altough it can also use this last one. The PinPoint Mini is a smaller platform, with lower throughput, but faster runs, similar to another instrument that was recently released by another commercial company. This instrument is not available yet.
The strongest point of both the instruments is that running them will be much cheaper than all other current solutions. And for the MaxSeq, even the instrument itself is much cheaper than the other commercialy available platforms. If you have any questions about it, please let me know.
Ezequiel

As I already mentioned in this thread, the polonator is no longer being commercialized. Another instrument, which is partially derived from the polonator (some hardware parts only) is now available, called the MaxSeq.
This new instrument was totally redesigned by IBS, having SBS as a center piece of the instrument's development.
It will also carry other significant advantages, as higher throughput, faster runs and even cheaper consumables.

We are hoping to have a specific forum on the Sequencing Technologies/Companies section, so we can post some news about it.
In the mean time, I can tell you that we are now installing our first machine, and we have created a blog where everyone will be able to follow this installation as well as the following weeks of instrument's operation.
The blog is here: